Better Health: Smart Health Commentary Better Health (TM): smart health commentary

Article Comments (6)

Is IV Sedation Over-Used?

We criticize alternative medicine for not being evidence-based, and they criticize conventional medicine in turn, saying that much of what conventional medicine does is not based on evidence either. Sometimes that criticism is justified. I have run across a conventional practice that I suspect began because it sounded like a good idea, but that never was adequately tested and is not carefully thought out for individual patients.

I recently had a bone marrow aspiration. The written instructions said not to eat or drink for 6 hours before the procedure, to bring someone to drive me home, and to expect an IV. I suspected from these instructions that they were planning to use IV sedation, and I was right.

I questioned the need for sedation. I am prejudiced about bone marrow aspirations. I observed several and did one myself during my internship. When I had finished, the patient asked me when I was going to start. We did the procedure at the patient’s bedside in a multi-bed ward with no sedation, only local anesthesia. So my prejudice was that the procedure was no big deal and was not terribly painful.

I can imagine that some patients may be terrified by the idea of a needle going into their bone and may want to be sedated and not remember the experience. But I was not anxious about it, and I saw no need for the fentanyl and Versed they wanted to give me. I figured it would only prolong my time in the hospital, produce amnesia, expose me to a small risk of adverse effects, and leave me groggy; so I asked to opt out. They readily agreed – although they did keep asking me if I was really sure I didn’t want it. They would not have offered the option of no sedation if I had not known to ask.

The pathologist doing the procedure told me the injection of local anesthetic into the skin was the most painful part of the procedure. He was wrong. It was the ONLY painful part of the procedure. The penetration of bone and the aspiration of marrow produced only a pressure sensation.

This study reported that 85% of non-sedated patients had intense pain. I find that hard to believe, based on my personal experience and the experience of the pathologist that the local anesthetic was the worst part of the procedure. I wonder if those patients were anxious and were expecting intense pain. At any rate, I think giving me IV sedation would have been the wrong thing to do.

I had a similar experience with an excisional breast biopsy. They offered me general or local anesthesia and I chose local as presumably the safer option. Then they said they would use IV sedation along with the local. I asked why. They said to relieve anxiety. I told them I wasn’t anxious so if that was the only reason for sedation, I didn’t want it. I finally prevailed. I was comfortable, alert, had a good time chatting with the anesthesiologist, and was able to leave the recovery room much sooner than sedated patients.

I’m not saying that IV sedation is not indicated for some patients, but I am convinced it was not indicated for me. Has it become a knee-jerk reflex to sedate everyone as a general principle? Why? To avoid complaints and keep patients more cooperative during procedures? Are we paternalistically deciding that it is better if the patients don’t remember the procedure? I wonder: if minor procedures are not remembered, might the mystery increase anxiety and fear of the unknown for future procedures? We must ask seriously whether IV sedation is done more for the patient’s benefit or the doctor’s. The answer will vary with the procedure and the patient.

Rather than sedating every patient, why not use some judgment? Even if the patient is anxious, perhaps a non-drug option could relieve that anxiety without risking the side effects of drugs. Surely some anxiety is due to fear of the unknown. Would it help to show patients a video of someone comfortably undergoing the procedure without sedation, with an explanation of exactly what was happening? Would simple reassurance or personal attention from a patient advocate be helpful? Worth looking into? I think so.

Doctors are frequently accused of prescribing unnecessary drugs out of habit or reflex. I suggest that IV sedation for minor procedures is an example of over-prescription that is based more on custom than on good evidence.

*This blog post was originally published at Science Based Medicine.*


You may also like these posts

Read comments »


6 Responses to “Is IV Sedation Over-Used?”

  1. Ivory says:

    While you might not have experienced pain, I have seen patients experience severe pain during a bone marrow aspiration – to the point of screaming and flailing around. Your experience was not typical.

  2. Texas Reader says:

    This is a timely post. A few weeks ago I had my gall bladder out (lap chole.) I did lots of research online in advance and had a good recommendation of a general surgeon. I had several questions for the anesthesiologist. The last thing I remember was him sitting beside my bed in preop telling me he'd give me something to relax me, and me telling him my face felt odd. Then at 11 a.m. I was back in my room and looking at the clock and disturbed to have no memory of going into surgery or the recovery room.

    I had ASSUMED it would be just like my endoscopic endometriosis surgery for which I walked into the operating room and laid down on the table. WRONG. The med to relax me was Versed. I'll refuse it or any other amnesia drug in the future. I am unhappy that I was not told that it was NOTt just to relax me, despite making it very clear that I ask a lot of questions and like to understand exactly what will happen.

    And why do insurance companies pay for a drug that gives amnesia and has no medical purpose? My anesthisiologist was in his 30's and I'm shocked that he went with what I consider an old fashioned medicine approach – not telling me everything since I don't really “need” to know.

  3. Texas Reader says:

    This is a timely post. A few weeks ago I had my gall bladder out (lap chole.) I did lots of research online in advance and had a good recommendation of a general surgeon. I had several questions for the anesthesiologist. The last thing I remember was him sitting beside my bed in preop telling me he'd give me something to relax me, and me telling him my face felt odd. Then at 11 a.m. I was back in my room and looking at the clock and disturbed to have no memory of going into surgery or the recovery room.

    I had ASSUMED it would be just like my endoscopic endometriosis surgery for which I walked into the operating room and laid down on the table. WRONG. The med to relax me was Versed. I'll refuse it or any other amnesia drug in the future. I am unhappy that I was not told that it was NOTt just to relax me, despite making it very clear that I ask a lot of questions and like to understand exactly what will happen.

    And why do insurance companies pay for a drug that gives amnesia and has no medical purpose? My anesthisiologist was in his 30's and I'm shocked that he went with what I consider an old fashioned medicine approach – not telling me everything since I don't really “need” to know.

  4. pedsdoctor says:

    Here's my vote. Let's use our heads, review the history of sedation for procedures, and not base our actions on anecdotal evidence. I'm 52 years old, class of 1981, and practiced pediatrics for 26 years. Let's not go back to the days when we had to restrain a child to get a bone marrow done with local anesthetic. Not pretty. And those kids didn't know enough to be anxious at the thought of the needle going into bone marrow. I had core needle aspirate breast biopsy (benign). I was told “minor discomfort”, had lots of support, was very good at zoning out and self hypnosis–and it HURT, and kept on HURTING during the procedure. I was able to stay very still, but next time when faced with a biospy, I had a little “chat” with the doctor about pain control. I'm really glad that your experiences were good. And that's how it's supposed to be. And I do agree that a lot of patients (me included) might opt-out of the Pre-op meds that are meant to help with anxiety. Less is more. But let's be smart, look at the history. When many, or most patients experience bad pain with procedures, I say use the drugs.

  5. outrider says:

    I am a large animal veterinarian. Though I definitely sedate many of my patients, I don't do so in all cases. If the patient is calm and tractable, I sometimes use no sedation, just local anesthesia. I've injected joints, sutured wounds, placed large bore (12-16 ga) IV catheters, passed NG tubes… all without sedation, but using local anesthesia if appropriate. If the animal is anxious or painful beyond what I can control with local alone, sure, bring on the drugs. But sedation isn't always necessary, even in my 1000+lb patients.

    AAMOF, my personal horse had a laceration last night. He stood like a champ while I clipped, cleaned, explored, ultimately decided not to suture, then bandaged. If he'd required sutures, I would have performed a regional nerve block but probably wouldn't have sedated him. He's an angel for regional nerve blocks, and once he was numb he wouldn't have felt a thing. I probably would have put on his halter and had someone hold him while I sutured, though (I didn't bother for what I did last night). Obviously, my horse wasn't anxious at all about what I was doing, even though I couldn't explain the procedure to him.

    For myself, I'd never consent to general anesthesia unless there were no alternative. I'd also never agree to “pre-med” sedation for general anesthesia. If the patient isn't anxious, sedation has no purpose other than to decrease the anxiety of the anesthetist and other OR personnel. But this is also a matter of personal choice: I'd rather experience mild to moderate pain than confusion or nausea. Others may feel differently.

  6. outrider says:

    I am a large animal veterinarian. Though I definitely sedate many of my patients, I don't do so in all cases. If the patient is calm and tractable, I sometimes use no sedation, just local anesthesia. I've injected joints, sutured wounds, placed large bore (12-16 ga) IV catheters, passed NG tubes… all without sedation, but using local anesthesia if appropriate. If the animal is anxious or painful beyond what I can control with local alone, sure, bring on the drugs. But sedation isn't always necessary, even in my 1000+lb patients.

    AAMOF, my personal horse had a laceration last night. He stood like a champ while I clipped, cleaned, explored, ultimately decided not to suture, then bandaged. If he'd required sutures, I would have performed a regional nerve block but probably wouldn't have sedated him. He's an angel for regional nerve blocks, and once he was numb he wouldn't have felt a thing. I probably would have put on his halter and had someone hold him while I sutured, though (I didn't bother for what I did last night). Obviously, my horse wasn't anxious at all about what I was doing, even though I couldn't explain the procedure to him.

    For myself, I'd never consent to general anesthesia unless there were no alternative. I'd also never agree to “pre-med” sedation for general anesthesia. If the patient isn't anxious, sedation has no purpose other than to decrease the anxiety of the anesthetist and other OR personnel. But this is also a matter of personal choice: I'd rather experience mild to moderate pain than confusion or nausea. Others may feel differently.

Return to article »

Latest Interviews

How To Be A Successful Patient: Young Doctors Offer Some Advice

I am proud to be a part of the American Resident Project an initiative that promotes the writing of medical students residents and new physicians as they explore ideas for transforming American health care delivery. I recently had the opportunity to interview three of the writing fellows about how to…

Read more »

How To Make Inpatient Medical Practice Fun Again: Try Locum Tenens Work

It s no secret that most physicians are unhappy with the way things are going in healthcare. Surveys report high levels of job dissatisfaction burn out and even suicide. In fact some believe that up to a third of the US physician work force is planning to leave the profession…

Read more »

See all interviews »

Latest Cartoon

Richmond, VA – In an effort to simplify inpatient medical billing, one area hospitalist group has determined that “altered mental status” (ICD-9 780.97) is the most efficient code for use in any patient work up.

“When you enter a hospital, you’re bound to have some kind of mental status change,” said Dr. Fishbinder, co-partner of Area Hospitalists, PLLC. “Whether it’s confusion about where your room is located in relationship to the visitor’s parking structure, frustration with being woken up every hour or two to check your vital signs, or just plain old fatigue from being sick, you are not thinking as clearly as before you were admitted. And that’s all the justification we need to order anything from drug and toxin screens, to blood cultures, brain MRIs, tagged red blood cell nuclear scans, or cardiac Holter monitoring. There really is no limit to what we can pursue with our tests.”

Common causes of mental status changes in the elderly include medicine-induced cognitive side effects, disorientation due to disruption in daily routines, age-related memory impairment, and urinary tract infections.

“The urinalysis is not a very exciting medical test,” stated Dr. Fishbinder. “It doesn’t matter that it’s cheap, fast, and most likely to provide an explanation for strange behavior in hospitalized patients. It’s really not as elegant as the testing involved in a chronic anemia or metabolic encephalopathy work up. I keep it in my back pocket in case all other tests are negative, including brain MRIs and PET scans.”

Nursing staff at Richmond Medical Hospital report that efforts to inform hospitalists about foul smelling urine have generally fallen on deaf ears. “I have tried to tell the hospitalists about cloudy or bloody urine that I see in patients who are undergoing extensive work ups for mental status changes,” reports nurse Sandy Anderson. “But they insist that ‘all urine smells bad’ and it’s really more of a red herring.”

Another nurse reports that delay in diagnosing urinary tract infections (while patients are scheduled for brain MRIs, nuclear scans, and biopsies) can lead to worsening symptoms which accelerate and expand testing. “Some of my patients are transferred to the ICU during the altered mental status work up,” states nurse Anita Misra. “The doctors seem to be very excited about the additional technology available to them in the intensive care setting. Between the central line placement, arterial blood gasses, and vast array of IV fluid and medication options, urosepsis is really an excellent entré into a whole new level of care.”

“As far as medicine-induced mental status changes are concerned,” added Dr. Fishbinder, “We’ve never seen a single case in the past 10 years. Today’s patients are incredibly resilient and can tolerate mixes of opioids, anti-depressants, anti-histamines, and benzodiazepines without any difficulty. We know this because most patients have been prescribed these cocktails and have been taking them for years.”

Patient family members have expressed gratitude for Dr. Fishbinder’s diagnostic process, and report that they are very pleased that he is doing everything in his power to “get to the bottom” of why their loved one isn’t as sharp as they used to be.

“I thought my mom was acting strange ever since she started taking stronger pain medicine for her arthritis,” says Nelly Hurtong, the daughter of one of Dr. Fishbinder’s inpatients. “But now I see that there are deeper reasons for her ‘altered mental status’ thanks to the brain MRI that showed some mild generalized atrophy.”

Hospital administrators praise Dr. Fishbinder as one of their top physicians. “He will do whatever it takes to figure out the true cause of patients’ cognitive impairments.” Says CEO, Daniel Griffiths. “And not only is that good medicine, it is great for our Press Ganey scores and our bottom line.”

As for the nursing staff, Griffiths offered a less glowing review. “It’s unfortunate that our nurses seem preoccupied with urine testing and medication reconciliation. I think it might be time for us to mandate further training to help them appreciate more of the medical nuances inherent in quality patient care.”

Dr. Fishbinder is in the process of creating a half-day seminar on ‘altered mental status in the inpatient setting,’ offering CME credits to physicians who enroll. Richmond Medical Hospital intends to sponsor Dr. Fishbinder’s course, and franchise it to other hospitals in the state, and ultimately nationally.

***

Click here for a musical take on over-testing.

See all cartoons »

Latest Book Reviews

The Spirit Of The Place: Samuel Shem’s New Book May Depress You

When I was in medical school I read Samuel Shem s House Of God as a right of passage. At the time I found it to be a cynical yet eerily accurate portrayal of the underbelly of academic medicine. I gained comfort from its gallows humor and it made me…

Read more »

Eat To Save Your Life: Another Half-True Diet Book

I am hesitant to review diet books because they are so often a tangled mess of fact and fiction. Teasing out their truth from falsehood is about as exhausting as delousing a long-haired elementary school student. However after being approached by the authors’ PR agency with the promise of a…

Read more »

Unaccountable: A Book About The Underbelly Of Hospital Care

I met Dr. Marty Makary over lunch at Founding Farmers restaurant in DC about three years ago. We had an animated conversation about hospital safety the potential contribution of checklists to reducing medical errors and his upcoming book about the need for more transparency in the healthcare system. Marty was…

Read more »

See all book reviews »